Workshop results
The results highlighted some hypotheses and assumptions related to the necessary information, requirements, and details to choose a material for a project or application.
Material task choices – based on material selection
This part of the results was based on the material selected for each task and the evaluation of the tool sections. It emphasizes distinguishing between design and engineering choices.
Material Task 1
Material task 1 results of the top-ranking material in company preference was recycled PP, followed by PET and PP; sustainability preference top ranking was recycled cellulose-based, followed by algae-based, PLA, and mycelium; consumer preference top ranking was PLA, recycled cellulose-based, recycled PET, mycelium, and agro-leather. Participants did not select some materials regarding company and sustainability preferences, so finding the same material in their rankings was common. Instead, the ten materials were chosen at least once in the consumer preference ranking.
Material Task 1 Figures
Material task 1 ranking, complete material preferences
Material task 1 ranking, design and engineering choices
Material Task 2
Material task 2 preferred material was PLA, followed by recycled PET. For this case-study application task, only five materials were considered from the ten presented on the tool cards; additionally, the other materials were algae-based, renewable, and recycled PP. Design practitioner selection included only four materials: algae-based, recycled PET, PLA, and recycled PP. Engineering practitioners also chose four materials with a difference in selecting renewable PP instead of algae-based.
Material Task 2 Figures
Material task 2: Take-out container. General material selection
Material task 2: Take-out container. Design and engineering choices
Material Task 3
Material task 3 preferred materials for the three components are listed below. The upper and midsole material was chosen for at least half of the participants.
- Upper preferred material: Mycelium. Five materials were considered.
- Midsole preferred material: Algae-based. Six materials were considered.
- SpeedBoard preferred material: Renewable PP. Five materials were selected at least once.
Design practitioners preferred mycelium as the upper material, followed by recycled cellulose-based. Algae-based was the preferred midsole material; recycled PP, mycelium, and recycled PP were also considered. Renewable PP was the preferred SpeedBoard material; PLA, recycled PP, and agro-leather were also considered.
Engineering practitioners preferred mycelium as the upper material, and three more materials were considered: recycled cellulose-based, recycled PP, and agro-leather. The midsole's preferred material was algae-based. SpeedBoard's preferred material was renewable PP, followed by recycled PP.
Material Task 3 Figures
Material task 3: Running shoe components, general material selection [Blue: upper, red: midsole, and green: SpeedBoard]
Material task 3 design and engineering choices [Blue: upper, red: midsole, and green: SpeedBoard]
Tool sections evaluation
The results of the tool evaluation are shown in the figure. It summarizes the evaluation of the tool sections based on a 5-point scale. A black ascending dashed line represents the most used sections (preferred), and a red descending dashed line represents the less used sections (less) for the material tasks.
The sections most used by at least ten or more participants were Material Properties, Applications, and Technical Benefits. In contrast, the less used tool sections were DIY and Origin.
Tool Evaluation Figure
Evaluation of the tool sections [Preferred: black ascending dashed line most used sections, middle: yellow dashed line, less: red descending dashed line less used sections]
Task Analysis – Benchmark comparison
The benchmark was established based on the necessary steps to complete the material tasks, which were focused on procedural analysis with strategic steps involving internal thinking. This benchmark was compared with the 22 practitioners' material decision-making process to complete the tasks.
The comparison was evaluated on a 4-point scale where 0 meant the task was incomplete, 1 meant deviation from the process, 2 meant a middle ground where the participants did not make significant changes, and 3 meant the participant completed the step as planned without substantial changes. The goal of the comparison was to see the deviation from the benchmark and find the critical steps during the interaction with the tool. These deviations were essential for addressing the secondary research questions mentioned above.
This comparison evaluated the material selection process and how the material profile facilitates or does not facilitate this process for each participant. The benchmark is divided into six main steps to develop task steps clusters, 1 to 6, with sub-steps in each one.
Task Analysis Figures
Task analysis – benchmark comparison with participants' process to complete the material tasks, steps 1 and 2
Task analysis – benchmark comparison with participants' process to complete the material tasks, steps 3 and 4
Task analysis – benchmark comparison with participants' process to complete the material tasks, steps 5 and 6
Deviation started to arise by the end of step 1, with some significant changes in step 2. Steps 3b and 5b showed the most significant deviation from the benchmark. Steps 4, 5, and 6 had the most variation from the process. In step 6, participants did not complete some steps. Common participant deviations from the proposed benchmark are listed.
- Read application cards directly.
- Explore the material profile cards without reading the material guide.
- Predisposition to choose bio-based materials.
- Look for the environmental benefits card.
- Display material properties and technical benefits for the ten materials.
- Display the six or seven cards for each material as a first step to learning about each material.
- Start exploring all the cards in the order presented for two or three materials, then look for the properties section for the rest.
- Read the credentials for each material in front of the cards.